“Friend Moments”: A Discursive Study of Friendship
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study adopted an interactional perspective toward friendship and directly explored how pairs of self-identified friends practice friendship within a research conversation. Twelve pairs of young adult friends were interviewed together about their friendship, and the transcripts were analyzed using discourse analysis. During the interviews, participants performed their friendship in particular identifiable moments (i.e., friend moments) by addressing each other directly and drawing on locally shared resources (i.e., a shared personally relevant history, context, and resources), positioning themselves as insiders (i.e., friends), while the interviewer took up a position as an outsider (i.e., a nonfriend or stranger), often by remaining silent. Exploring friend moments revealed the plausibility of viewing friendship as actively interactional and nontrivially relational. Friend moments represent a particular kind of friendship talk where speakers accomplish the task of doing friendship in interaction, in personally relevant and situationally appropriate ways.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it